From owner-cvs-all Tue Feb 26 12:11: 9 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B8537B426; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g1QKAhdq096118; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:10:43 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020226.124843.125707643.imp@village.org> References: <200202261822.g1QIMcK95505@apollo.backplane.com> <20020226.124843.125707643.imp@village.org> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:10:42 -0500 To: "M. Warner Losh" , julian@elischer.org From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 exception.s genassym.c machdep.c mp_machdep.c mpapic.c swtch.s vm_machdep.c src/sys/i386/include cpufunc.h pcb.h src/sys/i386/isa apic_vector.s clock.c icu_vector.s intr_machdep.c intr_machdep.h npx.c src/sys/kern ... Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, jake@locore.ca, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:48 PM -0700 2/26/02, M. Warner Losh wrote: >In Julian Elischer writes: >: Consider this a test case. >: Core is appealled to. The blocking action of JHB's (good) work is >: doing more damage to the project than good. We need to be able to >: proceed without waiting for him... > >None of that excuses the extreme abuse that Matt has done. I think >you are over-stating things here. The problem is that Matt is trying to commit code, and for a week or two now he has been on the receiving end of too much abuse. And that abuse is not on *technical* merits, where I think we all have a right to argue with any person, but on vague "there is someone who is working in this area, so you're not allowed to work in it". That's OK for a week, it is not OK for six months. If someone needs to tie up a major section of code for six months, then there should be an explicit vote which allows him to do that. That's how the KSE stuff worked, for instance. We made an explicit vote to freeze the tree for (what was it?) two months or so. Everyone knew the rules, and knew why we had agreed to it. No one has to feel like they are being trampled on or held up for some vague arbitrary endless amount of time. All the effort which is going towards SMP is great to see (so I say, from the sidelines...). But work which is actually committed is easier to deal with, in a practical sense, than work which just sits out there "being worked on" for months and months. I do not want to pick "good guys" and "bad guys" here, but we do have to clarify what is acceptable practice and what is not acceptable. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message